IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 08 May 2020 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2AF3A0E08 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=oBglRlNk; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=tuB8+o6H
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKVYF8ONwOkw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEEC33A0E12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 63036 invoked from network); 8 May 2020 19:37:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f637.5eb5b4ed.k2005; bh=NHDZy+orn1BikGlq43d5fgzmEEVSGmizxhjTsyeYbY4=; b=oBglRlNkf2neA+OdrsiY3jnpG7iZhcGEhTRmZznhOlT7m84+NC+ITTQngcFRJRfEVwOWiliY1LanhSQ0244dLs8sy9wQKOkQki0TgUa5jg98Zy2AKcrGcJkptClVe7SLc0UdMuluGfFoEisQBIesSU46EnXBBwf/NoX2Xqi4ex93O/pxwZPRBsXJRCGVm5DzJ7Cjp0CBJK7O8XHAooUpRGXT9zEiN72r/V5R0tL9CIivb56mJfh4xVPa6MJDDrs2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f637.5eb5b4ed.k2005; bh=NHDZy+orn1BikGlq43d5fgzmEEVSGmizxhjTsyeYbY4=; b=tuB8+o6HPNTgE8W44XjaNLwvUpP6BH98MAx2qgiil6pbuJtvi+OlpTpcDFddHOrfprhof986LIBMrYOy4REJrTShJENqQWSIiztV75nIDARO+ynBgGAgpXfvEZx7Vu0VmLzgp2shNcV4YbenE79/jEyohAIKbuIwPkqzz8eL1Zct57sNaJVfl3kCu0A97HTvwQlqCHSmgQZN/pKKYwoOK9RDM8ALJDAxkK78LhVIJQPBOxE+up5Qjk+baMsfettk
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 08 May 2020 19:37:16 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id A48EC18ECDA8; Fri, 8 May 2020 15:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 15:37:16 -0400
Message-Id: <20200508193716.A48EC18ECDA8@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-BhdPEz0ZBtuA7DsFbNiK2HLwP8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 19:37:21 -0000

In article <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>First, I think you are wrong on the merits. I do not believe that support
>for IPv6 (nor DNSSEC, nor TLS 1.3) should be a primary criterion for
>selecting tools. It may make us sad that these technologies are not being
>adopted at a faster rate but I don't think that inconveniencing ourselves
>in order to make a statement is the right answer.

I happen to agree with this sentiment but I really wish we could give
this endless argument a rest.  

It's come up over and over for at least a decade, we have never come close
to resolving it, and we're not going to do it right now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email